Chan's formative period is typically discussed in
terms of a gradual shift away from the canonically-sanctioned
traditions of Indian and Chinese Buddhism.1 Although the connections between early Chan and the mainstream of Tang
Buddhism are too obvious to deny, most Chan/Zen scholars have
interpreted that relationship as a temporary stage in Chan's
irreversible move towards complete independence. Even at that point, we
are led to assume, it is possible to discern the latent forces that
fueled Chan's strive towards religious and institutional autonomy.
Those predispositions were a driving force in the construction of
Chan's distinct self-identity, which lead to the repudiation of
scriptural authority and subversion of established norms and mores.

Within this interpretative schemata, the Hongzhou
school plays a crucial role and its emergence marks a turning point in
the incipient growth of Chan as a uniquely Chinese form of Buddhism.
Under the leadership of Mazu and his followers, Chan supposedly took an
unmistakably iconoclastic turn that was predicated on a wholesale
rejection of the ideals, doctrinal tenets, spiritual practices, and
institutions of earlier Chinese Buddhism. According to this
interpretation, the classical Chan tradition that grew out of the
Hongzhou school was a culmination of a prolonged process that involved
construction of Chan's identity in terms of its repudiation of
canonical authority and location of its source of religious legitimacy
in the timeless experience of enlightenment, as realized by the Buddha
and the great Chan patriarchs.

The examination of Chan's attitudes towards
scriptural authority presented in this chapter serves as an implicit
critique of such one-sided interpretations, and presents an alternative
explanation of the evolution of Chan's relationship with the canonical
tradition. I start by situating the formation of early Chan attitudes
towards canonicity within the larger religious context of the Tang era,
and in reference to other major Buddhist schools that emerged during
the Sui-Tang period, especially Huayan 華嚴宗 and Tiantai 天台宗.
That is followed with a brief survey of the ways in which the various
groups that during the eight century constituted the heterogeneous Chan
movement appropriated scriptural authority in their search for
spiritual authenticity and socioreligious legitimacy. The next two
sections consist of an examination of the Hongzhou school's use of
scriptural sources and its subtle shift in outlook towards canonical
texts and traditions, which involved an innovative rapprochement with
scriptural authority rather than an outright repudiation of it. The
chapter ends by drawing attention to parallel developments in Confucian
scholarship, which reflected significant changes in intellectual
orientations that occurred during the mid-Tang period in the aftermath
of the An Lushan rebellion.

Scriptural Authority in Medieval Chinese Buddhism

In medieval Chinese Buddhism the scriptures
functioned as chief sources of religious authority and standards for
adjudicating the authenticity and orthodoxy of different doctrines and
practices. Canonically-sanctioned traditions shaped virtually all
aspects of Buddhist life, including rituals and other forms of
religious praxis, ethical observances, and monastic mores and
institutions. The gradual Sinification of Buddhism brought about
transformation of doctrinal and other elements that constituted the
religion brought to China from the "Western regions," but such changes
were generally justified by reinterpreting canonical texts and
traditions rather than by subverting them or by openly challenging
their authority. That was made easier by the sheer size of the Buddhist
canon, which included a wide range of texts that dealt with broad array
of subjects and were written from diverse doctrinal standpoints. It was
thus relatively easy to find canonical passages that could lend
credence to novel interpretations of existing doctrines, or to claim
scriptural support for completely new ideas introduced by Chinese
monks. The task was made even easier with the emergence of numerous
apocryphal texts composed in China, many of which became part of the
canon. Such native texts often initiated novel developments in the
evolution of Buddhist beliefs and doctrines, and addressed issues and
concerns that were absent from or glossed over in the Indian texts.
Throughout the period of division, and into the Tang, the translation
and exegesis of Indian scriptures and treatises remained a main concern
for Chinese Buddhists, and the leading translators and exegetes were
among the most esteemed members of the clergy.

The exalted status of canonical texts did not preclude
their creative use (and not infrequently misuse) by Buddhist thinkers who
were eager to lend scriptural support to the uniquely Chinese forms of
religious and philosophical discourse they were creating as participants in
the ongoing Sinificiation of Buddhist doctrines and practices. The emergence
of new Buddhist schools during the Sui-Tang period brought about different
attitudes towards canonicity. That included a tendency to interpret the
scriptures in terms of personal religious experiences and viewpoints, which
often reveled lack of concern if the interpretations were in accord with the
religious standpoints expressed in the canonical texts. As it has been noted
by Stanley Weinstein, during this period Indian canonical texts "were often
little more than pegs to which the (Chinese) patriarchs could attach their
own ideas," which stood in contrast with the efforts on part of earlier
exegetes to interpret canonical texts in ways that retained fidelity to
their authors' original intents.2 Starting with Zhiyi 智顗 (538-597),
the emphasis in scriptural exegesis shifted from literal interpretation
towards exploration of the canonical text's "recondite/essential
meaning"( xuanyi玄義). 3

A good example of this tendency is Zhiyi's Fahua xuanyi法華玄義, a seminal Tiantai texts
supposedly provides exegesis of the Lotus
Scripture. In fact, much of Zhiyi's lengthy discussion consists of
exhaustive interpretation of the five characters that constitute the title
of the Chinese translation of the Lotus
Scripture (Miaofa lianhua jing妙法蓮華經). In his explanation of
the scripture's sublime/subtle meaning, Zhiyi enters into all sorts of
philosophical speculations that, although of great significance in the
intellectual history of Chinese Buddhism, have little direct connection with
the original text of the scripture.4 The
same can be said of much of the prodigious literary output of Zhiyan 智儼 (602-668) and Fazang 法藏 (643-712), the great systematizers
of Huayan philosophy. Although most of Zhiyan and Fazang's writings are
supposed to explore the profound mysteries and sublime teachings presented
in the Huayan Scripture, their
detailed and complex formulation of Huayan doctrines such as the "ten
profound mysteries" (shi xuanmen十玄門) and "nature origination" (xingqi性
起) have only tenuous connections with the actual contents of the
scripture.

But even as they were formulating
original doctrinal tenets that reflected native intellectual concerns and
patterns of thinking, leading Chinese monks such as Zhiyi and Fazang still
felt compelled to bolster their interpretations and arguments with copious
quotations from canonical texts. They made considerable efforts to find
scriptural support for their highly original and creative philosophical
formulations, despite the fact that they were moving into directions not
envisaged by the Indian texts, and even in instances when their views did
not accord with the meaning of the canonical sources. In light of this
predisposition, it is not surprising that during the Sui-Tang period
Buddhist scholiasts turned away from reliance on Indian philosophical
treatises that presented systematic and clearly argued expositions of
Mādhyamika (Zhongguan 中觀) and
Yogācāra (Yuqiexing瑜伽行 )
philosophies. Careful exegesis of key Mahayana treatises was one of the
hallmarks of Chinese Buddhism during the fifth and sixth centuries. The main
exegetical schools that were formed during this era-including Shelun 攝論, Dilun地論, and Sanlun 三論—were based on specific translations
of treatises or scriptural commentaries composed by noted Indian
scholars/monks. In contrast, the founders of the Huayan and Tiantai
traditions turned towards key Mahāyāna scriptures that were open to diverse
interpretations and much more malleable to creative forms of exegesis.

Regardless of how innovative and idiosyncratic
their philosophical speculations might have been, it is important to
bear in mind that medieval Chinese monks still piously presented them
as systematic expositions of ideas and insight originally expressed in
the scriptures. In the case of the Huayan school, its complex doctrinal
system was supposedly meant to elucidate the essential meaning of the Huayan Scripture, while the Tiantai school made similar claims in regard to the Lotus Scripture.
In both cases (and the same was generally true for the rest of Sui-Tang
Buddhism), the scriptures continued to be perceived as precious
repositories of timeless truths, unequaled wellsprings of inspiration
and guides for spiritual praxis, and ultimate sources of religious
authority.

Early Chan's Attitudes Towards the Canon

In contrast to the doctrinal orientation of Huayan
and Tiantai, systematic scriptural exegesis was not an area of major
concern for the Chan school. Nonetheless, similar reverential and
accommodating attitudes towards the scriptures were also characteristic
of early Chan. Notwithstanding the differences among the various Chan
groups, one of the key characteristics of the early Chan movement,
which goes back to its origins, was an unmistakable tendency to
legitimize Chan practice by recourse to the canonical tradition. Let me
give a few examples that illustrate this point. Early Chan's eagerness
to co-opt scriptural authority can be seen in the appropriation of the Lankāvatāra Scripture (Lengqie jing楞伽經) as a symbol for the transmission of Chan, which was initially advanced by the followers of Hongren 弘忍 (601-674), the putative "fifth Chan patriarch." Lankāvatāra's transmission was also retroactively imputed back to Bodhidharma, the
Indian monk who came to be recognized as the "first patriarch" of
Chinese Chan. The connection between Bodhidharma and the Lankāvatāra might have been real, as can be seen from the biography of his main disciple Huike 慧可 (487-593). There Bodhidharma singles out this scripture and hands it to
his charge with the instruction that he should "practice in accord with
[its teachings]" (yixing依行).5 In light of such connection, the choice of this text as a symbol for
the transmission of Chan enlightenment can be seen a logical next step
in Chan's initial search to secure authority that was traditionally
associated with the Buddhist canon. Lengqie shizi ji楞伽師資記,
compiled by Jingjue (683-750?), the earliest text that makes such
connection, even goes as far as to recognize Gunabhadra, the Indian
monk who produced the first Chinese translation of the scripture, as a
Chan patriarch who directly preceded Bodhidharma. 6 Gunabhadra had no connection whatsoever with the Chan school, which at
any rate did not exist at the time. His induction into the Chan's
patriarchal lineage was solely due to the fact that he was Lankāvatāra's translator, which in itself points to the important role the scripture played in Chan's early search for legitimacy.

Another example from the same period is Shenhui's 神會 (684-758) use of the Diamond Scripture (Jingang jing金剛經)
as a source of religious legitimacy, when he employed this popular text
to buttress his partisan notions about Chan orthodoxy. As part of his
sectarian diatribes against his Northern school opponents, Shenhui's
recourse to the Diamond Scripture as a symbol for the transmission of Chan was a direct response to the Northern school's appropriation of the Lankāvatāra. According to him all Chan patriarchs, from Bodhidharma until Huineng, advocated and transmitted the Diamond Scripture, not the Lankāvatāra.7 In one of his transcribed discussions Shenhui proclaimed the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom, the central theme of the Diamond Scripture, to be the fundamental source (genben根本) of all practices.8 He then went on to proclaim to his audience that "If you wish to attain comprehension of the most profound dharmadhātu and enter directly into the Samādhi of Single Practice, you must first recite the Diamond Scripture and cultivate the Dharma of the perfection of wisdom."9 Similar emphasis on the perfection of wisdom is evident in the Platform Scripture,
which might be an evidence of Shenhui's influence on this text. There
Huineng is recorded as saying: "With only the one volume of the Diamond Scripture you may see into your own nature and enter the samādhi of prajñā" (但持金剛般若波羅蜜經一卷。即得見性。入般若三昧).10 In these instances we can see how during the mid-eight century specific
scriptures were at the center of sectarian battles over orthodoxy and
religious supremacy waged by competing Chan factions.

Similar attitudes towards canonical texts and related traditions are also discernable in the extant records of the Niutou 牛頭 school, which had its largest following during the middle part of the
eight century. Niutou's teachings were influenced by the philosophical
tenets of the Mādhyamika or Middle Way tradition, as mediated by
Chinese doctrinal formulations produced by the Tiantai and Sanlun
schools. The teachers of Farong 法融 (594-657), the putative founding patriarch of the Niutou school, were
all associated with the Sanlun school (which at the time was regarded
as the main Chinese representative of the Mādhyamika tradition).11 In light of that connection, it is not surprising that the concept of "emptiness" plays a prominent role in Farong's Jueguan lun絕觀論,12 or that in his writings on Chan Zongmi describes the Niutou school as
advocating a Mādhyamika-type of apophasis that reveals the emptiness of
all phenomena.13

The Chan penchant for evoking canonical authority is also evident in Lidai fabao ji歷代法寶記,
the main record of the Baotang school, which gained notoriety as the
most radical faction of early Chan. Notwithstanding the conventional
view of Wuzhu, the leader of the Baotang school, as an iconoclast who
repudiated all traditional doctrines and practices, the text starts
with a list of Buddhist works that were popular at the time (37 titles
in total). The list includes popular canonical texts such as the Nirvana, Lotus, and Diamond scriptures, as well as Chinese apocryphal texts such as Faju jing法句經and Chanmen jing禪門經.14 These and other canonical works are frequently quoted in the Lidai fabao ji, which also cites a number of non-Buddhist works, including Laozi, Zhuangzi, and other Taoist texts, as well as various historical works.15

Early Chan was not only using texts that were
already part of the canon, but it also took the additional step of
creating apocryphal texts that were presented as scriptures attributed
to the Buddha. In doing so, Chan was participating in an establish
practice, whereas new religious developments were provided with added
canonical legitimacy by the creation of apocryphal scriptures that
expressed the same (or similar) ideas. One such example, probably
originating in Korea, was the Vajrasāmadhi Scripture.
This text was composed during the seventh century in order to lend
scriptural support to the novel doctrines of the early Chan school. 16 At the time Chan was still in the process of formulating its
self-identity, and it was also entering the Korean peninsula for the
first time, where it faced a backlash from the already-established
doctrinal schools.

Finally, there is the use of "symbolic exegesis,"
which exemplifies the tendency to legitimize Chan practice by recourse
to key concepts and passages from canonical texts. 17 This practice is mainly associated with the Northern school, but as it
can also be found in texts produced by other schools of Chan, and it
can perhaps be viewed as an exegetical strategy that was popular
throughout the early Chan movement. The origins of symbolic exegesis
can be traced back to Zhiyi's commentary of the Lotus Scripture. Within early Chan literature examples of it can be found in diverse texts such as the Platform Scripture, various Northern school manuscripts, the records of Shenhui, and the Lidai fabao ji.
Its employment as an exegetical tool involved redefining traditional
Buddhist practices and rubrics, which were reinterpreted as metaphors
in a manner peculiar to the nascent Chan movement. One of the key
objective of this procedure was the establishing of close connection
between Chan mediation and key ideas found in the scriptures. Let me
give a couple of examples. The first one comes from the Lidai fabao ji,
where Wuzhu correlates the three propositions taught by Wuxiang (no
remembering, no thought, and no forgetting) with the traditional
Buddhist rubric of the three trainings (observance of the precepts,
concentration, and wisdom), and then collapses them all into the Chan
formula of "no thought."

The Minister (Du Hongjian 杜鴻漸 [709-796]) asked: "Did Rev. Kim (Wuxiang) talk about no remembering, no
thought, and no forgetting?" The Reverend (Wuzhu) relied: "Yes." The
Minister also asked: "Are these three propositions one or three?" The
Reverend relied: "They are one, not three. No remembering is [the
observance of] precepts, no thought is concentration, and no forgetting
is wisdom." He also said: "Not giving rise to thoughts is the precepts,
not giving rise to thoughts is concentration, and not giving rise to
thoughts is wisdom. No thought is the complete perfection of the
precepts, meditation, and wisdom."18

The second example comes from the Dunhuang version of the Platform Scripture. In its discussion of meditation, the text offers the following peculiar explanations of "sitting meditation" (zuochan座禪) and "meditative absorption" (chanding禪定).

Now that we know that this is so, what is it in this teaching that we call "sitting in meditation" (zuochan)?
In this teaching "sitting" means without any obstruction anywhere,
outwardly and under all circumstances, not to activate thoughts.
"Meditation" is internally to see the original nature and not become
confused. And what do we call Chan meditation (chanding) ? Outwardly to exclude form is "chan"; inwardly to be unconfused is meditation (ding).
Even though there is form on the outside, when internally the nature is
not confused, then, from the outset, you are of yourself pure and of
yourself in meditation. The very contact with circumstance itself
causes confusion. Separation from form on the outside is "chan"; being
untouched on the inside is meditation (ding). Being "chan" externally and mediation (ding) internally, it is known as Chan meditation (chanding). 19

The employment of symbolic exegesis as a kind of
"expedient means" points to the fact that early Chan made strong
efforts to trace its doctrines back to the scriptures. That was part of
a strategy developed as Chan was moving from the margins and into the
mainstream, aimed at convincing its audiences that its teachings were
true expression of the Buddhadharma, perhaps even the most authentic
one.20 If bizarre metaphors and forced interpretations could help to achieve
that goal, Chan teachers apparently were quite willing to use them.

Use of the Scriptures within the Hongzhou School

As we turn to the Hongzhou school, it is
conspicuous that in its records there is no evidence of the use of
either symbolic exegesis or any other comparable strategies for
bridging the gap between Chan and the canonical tradition. At the same
time, there are also serious problems with the conventional
interpretation of the Hongzhou school as the first Chan tradition to
completely break away from the putative Indian character of
Buddhism-which among other things involved repudiation of canonical
authority-and pave the way for a completely new and uniquely Chinese
form of Chan. The primary textual evidence that shapes such perception
of the Hongzhou school consists of numerous stories that depict the
idiosyncratic saying and doings of Mazu and his great disciples. In
these short exchanges, which are by far the best-known part of Chan
lore, traditional Buddhist discourse is completely forsaken and there
is hardly any mention of conventional doctrines and practices. Instead,
we are presented with brief accounts that depict Chan teachers' lively
and unpredictable acts, with focus on the ostensibly spontaneous
interactions with their disciples.

Examples of well-known stories that are readily
identified with the iconoclastic attitudes and acts of Chan teachers
include those about Nanquan killing a cat,21 Mazu kicking Shuilao and sending him down into a puddle of water,22 and the burning of a Buddha image by Danxia, who supposedly used the wood to warm himself on a cold winter day.23 As I have show in a recent publication, the problem with this interpretation is that it is based on untenable evidence.24 None of the stories that are responsible for Mazu's iconoclastic image
were created before the mid-tenth century, some 160 years after his
death. The same is true of all other Chan stories that feature his
disciples and other monks from the Tang period. In effect, the accepted
interpretation of the Hongzhou school's radical character and its
repudiation of canonical traditions is based on later fictional stories
that really have little to do with its actual teachings and practices.

If that is the case, then what kind of attitudes
towards the scriptures and canonical authority do we find in the
earliest sources, which include epigraphic evidence, transcripts of
sermons and lectures, texts composed by Chan teachers, and additional
materials from non-Buddhist sources (especially poetry and prose
composed by noted literati)? In the records of the Hongzhou school
there are very few instances where there is an explicit invocation of
canonical authority. A rare exception is the following passage that
opens one of Mazu's sermons.

The Patriarch (Mazu) said to the assembly, "All
of you should believe that your mind is Buddha, that this mind is
identical with Buddha. The Great Master Bodhidharma came from India to
China and transmitted the One Mind teaching of Mahayana so that it can
lead you all to awakening. Fearing that you will be too confused and
will not believe that this One Mind is inherent in all of you, he used
the Lankāvatāra Scripture to seal the sentient beings' mind-ground. Therefore, in the Lankāvatāra Scripture, mind is the essence of all the Buddha's teachings, no gate is the Dharma-gate."25

This passage is interesting because it indicates that Mazu advocated the association of Chan with the Lankāvatāra Scripture.
As was already noted, such connection is usually associated with the
Northern school. By extension, the passage can also be read as implying
Mazu's rejection of the putative link between the "orthodox" Southern
school and the Diamond Scripture that was invented by Shenhui and his cohorts.

Explicit acknowledgement of scriptural authority of
the kind evident in the above quotation is atypical of the Hongzhou
school. Direct references to specific scriptures are relatively rare in
the records of Mazu and his disciples, but that does not mean that they
rejected the canon or repudiated its authority. To the contrary, one of
the striking features of their records is that they are filled with
scriptural quotations and allusions, even though the full extend of
their usage of canonical sources is not immediately obvious and its
discernment requires familiarity with Buddhist literature. Here is an
example from one of Mazu's sermons.

Those who seek the Dharma should not seek for
anything. Outside of mind there is no other Buddha, outside of Buddha
there is no other mind. Not attaching to good and not rejecting evil,
without reliance on either purity or defilement, one realizes that the
nature of offense is empty: it cannot be found in each thought because
it is without self-nature. Therefore, the three realms are mind-only
and all phenomena in the universe are marked by a single Dharma.
Whenever we see form, it is just seeing the mind. The mind does not
exist by itself; its existence is due to form. Whatever you are saying,
it is just a phenomenon which is identical with the principle. They are
all without obstruction, and the fruit of the way to awakening is also
like that.

At first sight, if one is not familiar with
classical Buddhist literature one might assume that this passage
expresses a religious or philosophical viewpoint that is unique to the
Chan school. After all, we are repeatedly told and led to believe that
Chan teachings, especially those formulated by Mazu and his followers,
are unique expressions of sublime wisdom and are unlike the teachings
of the other Buddhist traditions. Now let us have a look at another
translation of the same passage:

[The Vimalakīrti Scripture says] "Those who seek the Dharma should not seek for anything." [As it is taught in the Huayan Scripture,] Outside of mind there is no other Buddha, outside of Buddha there is no other mind. [ As taught in the Mahāsamnipata-sūtra and the Huayan Scripture,]
Not attaching to good and not rejecting evil, without reliance on
either purity or defilement, one realizes that [as explained in Foshuo Foming Scripture佛說佛名經 and other Buddhist texts,] "the nature of offense is empty": it cannot
be found in each thought because it is without self-nature. Therefore,
[as explained in the Huayan and Lankāvatāra scriptures] "the three realms are mind-only," and [as stated in the Faju jing]
"all phenomena in the universe are marked by a single Dharma." Whenever
we see form, it is just seeing the mind. The mind does not exist by
itself; its existence is due to form. Whatever you are saying, it is
just [what Dushun's Fajie guanmen refers to as] "a phenomenon which is identical with the principle." [As
it is said in Huayan texts,] they are "all without obstruction," and
the fruit of the way to awakening is also like that. 26

Actually, it is the same translation. All I did was
follow standard academic practice by adding quotation marks to quoted
passages and supplying the original sources of the quotations and other
passages that contain ideas borrowed from other texts. With that, what
at first sight appeared to be a paragraph of distinctively Chan
teachings turned out to be little more then a collection of canonical
quotations accompanied by comments that explicate or draw connections
between the scriptural passages. This passage is by no means unique in
that regard. In fact, it is quite typical. Here is one more example
from another sermon by Mazu:

[The Vimalakīrti Scripture says,] "Not obliterating the conditioned and not dwelling in the
unconditioned." The conditioned is the function of the unconditioned,
while the unconditioned is the essence of the conditioned. Because of
not dwelling on support, it has been said [in the Huayan Scripture that it is] "like space which rests on nothing." [According to Dasheng qixin lun,]
the mind can be spoken of [in terms of its two aspects,] "birth and
death, and suchness." [As pointed out in early Chan texts,] The mind as
suchness is like a clear mirror which can reflect images.27 The mirror symbolizes the mind, while the images symbolize the dharmas.
If the mind grasps at dharmas, then it gets involved in external causes
and conditions, which is the meaning of birth and death. If the mind
does not grasp at dharmas, that is suchness.28

There is really very little in these passages that
readily identifies them as teachings unique to the Chan school. On the
contrary, the ideas presented in them represented mainstream doctrinal
positions that were widely accepted in the world of Tang Buddhism.
Having said that, I do not mean to imply that there is noting new in
the teachings propounded by the Hongzhou school. Of course, Mazu and
his disciples came up with some original and interesting ideas. But the
main point, as far as the present discussion is concerned, is that the
records of Mazu and his followers are full of quotations and allusions
to a vide range of canonical texts. That clearly contradicts their
stereotypical depiction as iconoclasts who repudiated the canonical
tradition and whose radical Chan teachings harbored strong bibliophobic
tendencies.29

Chan's attitudes towards writing in general, and
the scriptures in particular, were never as simple as popular slogans
seem to indicate. Such sentiments are readily discernable in the
widely-quoted definition of Chan as "A special transmission outside of
the teachings, which does not institutes words and letters," created
during the Song period. 30 Notwithstanding the popularity of such mottos, it is questionable if
the debasement of writing and denunciation of scripture were true of
any mainstream Chan tradition. 31 But it is clear that it is completely mistaken to attribute such sentiments to the Hongzhou school.

Chan monks' reliance on the Buddhist canon should
not come as that much of a surprise if one were to pay close attention
to the biographical data that deals with their formative education, and
if one were to take into account the general religious milieu of Tang
Buddhism, including the prevalent attitudes and sentiments towards the
scriptures. The leaders of the Hongzhou school were well-read monks
conversant with the canonical texts and traditions. A number of them,
including Mazu and Baizhang, came from upper class families, and they
also received classical Confucian education during their youth. In many
(probably most) instances Chan monks dedicated the early years of their
monastic training to the study of Buddhist scriptures, a common pattern
followed by the elite segments of the Tang clergy. A good example of
such monk is Baizhang. Born in the Wang clan of Taiyuan, one of Tang's
greatest aristocratic clans, after his ordination in 767 Baizhang
dedicated himself to study of the scriptures.32 The records of Baizhang's late teachings reveal that the extensive
knowledge of the canonical tradition he acquired during the formative
years of his monastic vocation continued to inform his religious
outlook until the end of his life. The transcripts of Baizhang's
sermons and conversations with his disciples are full of scriptural
quotations and allusions, and reveal a monk who was at ease with both
the contemplative and doctrinal aspects of Buddhism.

If, like their earlier Chan predecessors, Mazu and
his disciples made free and extensive use of canonical texts, are there
any major differences in terms of the specific texts they used? The
table presented below list some of the scriptures quoted or alluded to
in three important records from the Hongzhou school's literary output:
Mazu's sermons, 33 Dazhu's Dunwu yaomen, 34 and Baizhang's Baizhang guanglu.35 The list is not exhaustive since the three texts, especially Dazhu's
treatise and Baizhang's record, quote a wider range of canonical works.

Table 1. Scriptural quotation/allusions in the records of the Hongzhou school {table1}

There is considerable overlap in the choice of
scriptural texts that appear in the three Chan records. Sometimes the
three records are even quoting or alluding to the same scriptural
passages. Among all canonical texts the Vimalakīrti Scripture emerges as a clear favorite. That reflects the general popularity of
this scripture during the Tang period, and its widespread acceptance
within the Chan school as a canonical text whose teachings had close
affinities with Chan. Each of the three monks also seems to have had
other text(s) with which he felt greater affinity. In the case of Mazu,
apparently he was fond of the Lankāvatāra Scripture,
while Dazhu (and to a lesser extend Baizhang) show greater interest in
scriptures belonging to the Prajñāpāramitā corpus, among which the
popular Diamond Scripture is quoted most often by far.

The texts listed in the above table represented the
most popular Mahayana scriptures that were widely read by monks and
laity during the Tang period (and, for that matter, throughout the
history of Buddhism in China). Moreover, these same texts (along with
the other Chinese texts mentioned below) are pretty much the same as
the ones that are quoted in earlier Chan texts. For instance, the
records of the Hongzhou school quote practically the same canonical
texts as the records of Shehui,36 the Northern school, and Mahāyāna (Moheyan), the Chan teacher who was
the Chinese representative at the Buddhist council in Lhasa (all of
which were discovered in Dunhuang).37

Though most of the quotations that appear in the
above three records come from Chinese translations of Indian
scriptures, Mazu, Dazhu, and Baizhang also quoted other sources,
including apocryphal scriptures and other Chinese texts that were
popular during the Tang. Some of the most important Chinese sources
quoted in the three records are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Apocryphal scriptures and other Chinese texts quoted/alluded to in the records of the Hongzhou school

Text Title

Mazu's sermons

Dunwu yaomen

Baizhang guanglu

Chanmen jing禪門經

2

Faju jing法句經

1

3

Fanwang jing梵網經

3

Shoulengyan jing首楞嚴經

1

1

1

Dasheng qixin lun大乗起信論

2

2

Zhao lun肇論

1

4

Fu dashi's 傅大士 records

1

1

Chinese apocryphal scriptures were apparently read
by the Hongzhou monks, but as can be seen from the two tables they were
less popular than the Indian scriptures. The inclusion of Dasheng qixin lun in the list is not surprising, considering the immense importance of
this text in the doctrinal development of Tang Buddhism, including
Chan. 38 Its importance within the Hongzhou school was probably greater then the
number of quotations indicate. Chan monks apparently were also fond of
reading the records of eminent Buddhist leaders from the period of
disunity. Among them, the most popular were Kumārajīva's disciple
Sengzhao 僧肇 (374?-414) and the popular lay sage Fu dashi, both of whom are often quoted in Chan texts from the Tang period.

From the above analysis it is evident that if there
was anything new in the Hongzhou school's attitude towards the
scriptures and canonical authority, it is not to be found in its
rejection of the scriptures or in its turning towards a new set of
canonical texts. Rather, the subtle but significant shift in the
Hongzhou school's attitude towards scriptural authority can be located
in the manner canonical texts were employed in the production of new
knowledge and the creation of distinct religious identity.

Evolving Attitudes Towards Scriptural Authority

When we compare the Hongzhou school's use of
canonical materials with that of the earlier Chan movement, there are
notable similarities but also significant divergence between the two.
Although the texts that are cited in the records of Mazu and his
disciples are pretty much the same as those quoted in earlier Chan
texts, they are used in a somewhat different manner. The difference in
usage is subtle, but it has serious ramifications for our understanding
of Chan's evolution as a distinct school of Chinese Buddhism. In the
passages from Mazu's record that were introduced above we saw how Chan
teachers seamlessly wove into their sermons numerous scriptural
quotations and allusions, usually without identifying their sources.
The same propensity to imbed canonical passages or images into Chan
sermons without divulging their provenance is also characteristic of
other Hongzhou school texts, including Baizhang's Guanglu and Huangbo's Chuanxin fayao.
In these texts scriptural citations and metaphors are integrated into
the overall narrative structure of Chan sermons, without delineating
specific structural boundaries or explicit markings between the
excerpts from scriptures and the teachings of Chan teachers.

The tendency to quote a scripture without
identifying the source, or even without indicating that certain passage
is a quotation, was not unique to the Hongzhou school. Examples of
similar usage can also be found in the writings of earlier Buddhist
scholiasts, such as Zhiyi.39 Furthermore, in the Hongzhou school's records occasionally a scriptural
quotations is marked as such, usually by prefacing it with the phrase
"a scripture says" (jing yun經云).
There are also rare instances where the text provides the title of the
canonical source that is being quoted. In other cases the text
indicates that an idea or passage comes from another source by using a
phrase such as "it has been said," but without identifying the original
source of the quotation. The following passage from Baizhang guanglu exemplifies some of the ambiguities that characterize the use of
canonical quotations in this type of Chan texts (with references to
original sources and quotation marks supplied by the translator).

As is stated [in the Vimalakīrti Scripture,]"The Dharma has nothing it can be equated with," because it cannot be compared [to anything].40 [Jizang's commentary of the LotusScripture says,] "The Dharma-body is unconditioned, and it does not fall into all categories."41 Therefore it is said [in a commentary on the Vimalakīrti Scripture and/or the Zhaolun?] that the essence of the sage is nameless and cannot be expressed in words.42 It is like the simile [from the Dazhidu lun]
about insects that can settle anywhere except that they are unable to
settle on the top of burning flames. Sentient beings are also thus:
they can form connections anywhere, except that they cannot form
connections with the perfection of wisdom.43

This short passage (and there are many like it)
highlights the problems one encounters when trying to unravel the
complex webs of canonical quotations and allusions that are embedded in
Baizhang's record and other similar texts. In part, the difficulty
arises from the peculiar (and frequently imprecise) ways in which
Baizhang is using canonical texts. That was probably largely due to the
fact that he was quoting from memory. It also seems that he was not
unduly concerned with academic pedantry and scholarly accuracy. The
situation is further exacerbated by the broad scope of his knowledge of
the canon and the wide range of texts he was using. It appears as if
Baizhang had internalized the contents of large sections of the
Buddhist canon to such an extent that he spontaneously used copious
scriptural quotations and allusions as part of his natural speech.

How about the audience to which Mazu's and
Baizhang's sermons were addressed? Were they able to discern the
infusion of scriptural imagery and exegesis in the sermons of their
teaches? The exact sources do not directly address these sorts of
questions, but they provide us with some indirect clues. We can presume
that the sermons where delivered in front of larger audiences that
included individuals with different levels of education and knowledge
of the canon. Notwithstanding such qualifiers, it is apparent that at
least rudimentary knowledge of the key scriptures and doctrines was
taken for granted within the religious communities where these sermons
were delivered. It is important to bear in mind that the sermons were
primarily directed at monastic congregations, whose members were
expected to have at least basic knowledge of the canon. The second key
audience were the literati and officials who frequented Chan
monasteries. They were the best-educated members of medieval Chinese
society, and a good number of them were conversant with Buddhist
literature and possessed rather sophisticated knowledge of Buddhist
doctrines.

Familiarity with canonical texts is evident in the
questions posed to Chan teachers by their disciples. Many of the
questions found in the early sources contain quotations from scriptures
or extra-canonical works, and a number of questions simply ask for
explanation of well-known scriptural passages. Here are a couple of
examples from Baizhang's record. The first question also appears in an
identical form in the record of Baizhang's disciple Huangbo.

僧問。大通智勝佛。十劫坐道場。佛法不現前。不得成佛道如何。

A monk asked: "How is it that Excellence of Great
Universal Wisdom Buddha sat at the site of awakening for ten eons
without the Buddhadharma appearing to him, and without him achieving
Buddhahood [as is described in the famous passage from the Lotus Scripture]?"44

問。空生大覺中。如海一漚發如何。

Question: "What is the meaning of [the well-known saying from the Śūrangama Scripture], 'Empty space is born within great awareness, like a bubble being formed in the ocean.'"45

Far from revealing the kind of iconoclastic
sentiments and anti-doctrinal tendencies usual associated with
classical Chan, the records of key Hongzhou school figures show an
inventive sense of rapprochement between Chan and canonical Buddhism.
The structure of the sermons reveals how the integration of the two was
symbolically enacted by the dissolution of the boundaries between the
words of the Buddha and the words of Chan teachers. This blurring of
distinctions between scriptural authority and the authority of Chan
teachers conveys a sense of self-confidence and maturity on part of the
Hongzhou school. Such confident stand in stands out against the overtly
assertive efforts on the part of early Chan to show that its teachings
are in harmony with the scriptures.

That self-confidence on part of the Hongzhou school
especially stands in sharp contrast with the attitudes discernible in
the records of earlier monks who found themselves on the margins of the
Chan movement. Perhaps the best example of such monk is Shenhui. One
generation Mazu's senior, Shenhui was best-known for his involvement in
the sectarian debates between the so-called "Northern" and "Southern"
schools of Chan. His desire to become a representative of the orthodox
faction of Chan led to Shenhui's trenchant critique of the Northern
school and his construction of a fictional patriarchal tradition.46 Like his Northern school adversaries, Shenhui was favorably inclined
towards the use of the scriptures, and he promoted the unity of Chan
and the canonical teachings. But his use of scriptures to lend
legitimacy to his ideas went even further, and he was quite prepared to
misuse scriptural quotations to score a point. In some cases scriptural
passages were either misquoted or used merely as props for justifying
ideas that were not at all present in the original texts, even if in
the process of doing so the canonical teachings were manifestly
misinterpreted.47 Such tendency can be seen in a dialogue between him and Dharma teacher
Yuan, where he defends his outrageous claim that he is a tenth stage
bodhisattva with a quotation from the Nirvana Scripture.48 (It is interesting to note that Shenhui's brazen boast that he is a tenth stage bodhisattva constitutes a pārājika offense, the most serious form of monastic transgression that leads to automatic exclusion from the order).

In contrast to Shenhui, in the records of Mazu and his
disciples there is little to suggest that they were overly anxious to
prove the orthodoxy of their teachings, nor is there any indication
that they were willing to manipulate and misuse scriptural quotations
to accomplish their objectives. The Hongzhou school had enough
self-confidence to simply present its teachings as a genuine expression
of authentic Buddhist religiosity. There is nothing to indicate that
they felt compulsion to prove that their teachings were in accord with
the canonical tradition, or that they were superior to those of other
schools of Chan. The attitude evidenced in their records is not that of
an outsider group trying to break into the mainstream religious
establishment and position itself as part of it, or create an
alternative to it. Effectively, their basic stance can be interpreted
as implying: This are the essential teachings of Buddhism as understood
and experienced by us; we invite you to consider them carefully.

To some extent, such attitudes reflected the
religious personalities and communal ethos of Mazu and his followers.
But in a more general sense, such confident stance reflected important
changes that marked the transition from early to classical Chan. By the
early ninth century the Hongzhou school's meteoric rise to preeminence
led to its total eclipsing of all other schools of Chan . As we saw in
Part 1 of the present volume, its success was reflected in its
establishment of strong presence in the two capitals and all major
provinces of the vast Tang empire, the widespread popularity of its
teachers and teachings, and in its procurement of recognition and
support from the Tang state and the ruling elites. All of that signaled
the fact that the Hongzhou school had become an integral part of the
Buddhist mainstream. As they felt secure in their positions as leaders
of a respectable Buddhist tradition, Mazu's disciples probably did not
feel strong pressure or need to bolster their status and reinforce
their group legitimacy by aggressively appropriating the religious
authority of the Buddhist canon, even as they made free use of the
scriptures in their expositions of the path to spiritual awakening.

In that sense the Hongzhou school's usage of
scriptural images and narratives, and in a more general sense its
attitudes towards canonical authority, represent an important new
development in the evolution of Chan attitudes towards the scriptures
and the normative doctrines of Mahayana Buddhism. In the course of the
formation of the Hongzhou school's identity, Mazu and his disciples
adopted a stance of active yet somewhat low-key engagement with the
canonical tradition. Rather than rejecting the scriptures and
repudiating canonical authority, they appropriated them and present
their Chan teachings as their very essence. In doing so, they struck a
balance between acknowledging the authority and charisma of the
hallowed traditions represented by the Buddhist canon on one hand,
while at the same time they were able to adopt an independent stance
and present they own teachings as expressions of genuine religious
insight. The two were not necessarily in conflict because, from their
point of view, their insights resonated with the deepest truths of
Buddhism. While that implied the Chan teachers' role as transmitters of
essential truths and insight, it also presented implicit critique of
other established traditions that failed to grasp and communicate those
truths. In that sense, their teachings were partially meant to serve as
correctives to partial visions of the Path that were accepted in the
world of Tang Buddhism.

As pointed out in Chapter 6, Mazu and his disciples
reformulated religious ideas that were perceived as the crowning truths
of the Buddhist canon, expressing them in ways that resonated with
monks and literati interested in meditative praxis. Such approach can
be understood in terms of the already-noted dialectic of iconoclasm and
traditionalism, which informed the Hongzhou school's construction of
its religious identify. The Hongzhou school's balancing act involved
appropriate responses to two contrasting requirements. On one hand,
Mazu and his disciples demonstrated their mastery and fidelity to
hallowed Buddhist traditions that were largely identified with the
canon. At the same time, they were able to construct for themselves a
new religious identity by rejection and/or reformulation of important
aspects of those traditions. The success of the Hongzhou school was
largely due to the fact that they proved themselves more capable of
meeting both challenges than their predecessors and potential
competitors within the Chan movement.

Chan teachings such as Baizhang's "three phases"
(discussed in the last chapter) combined an impression of intellectual
sophistication with a sense of spiritual exigency, and conveyed the
prospect of actualizing the immediacy of awakening within the context
of everyday life. While Baizhang's teaching was an engaging new
description of the path to spiritual awakening, at the same time it
also conveyed deep insights about the nature of religious practice and
experience that were at the core of Sinitic reformulations of Mahayana
Buddhism. Baizhang framed his thoughts with the help of copious
quotations from and allusions to canonical texts, while blurring the
boundaries between his own ideas and those of the canonical tradition.
The inclusion of scriptural quotations in Chan sermons conveyed a sense
of rapprochement between Chan and the canonical tradition, and
acknowledgment/respect for traditional religious authority. However,
the dissolution of the boundaries between the words of the Buddha and
the words of Chan teachers also suggests a new source of religious
authority: the enlightened Chan teacher whose words and deeds embodied
the truths of Buddhism.

It is possible to argue that later, especially
during the Song period, Chan adopted more radical and sectarian
approaches to defining spiritual authenticity and religious authority.
But as far as the mid-Tang period is concerned, Chan was in the process
of becoming an integral part of mainstream Buddhism, not a replacement
for it. In the same vein, Chan teachers such as Mazu and Baizhang were
becoming spokespersons for Buddhism, especially for its contemplative
branch, rather then alternative foci of religious authority that
existed outside of the main monastic order. In a sense, the emergence
of the Hongzhou school and the transition to classical Chan represents
a beginning of new chapter in the historical development of Chan. For
the first time, Chan came to occupy a position that from that time
onward became characteristic of its place within Chinese Buddhism.
Namely, Chan was moving away from being one among the various Buddhist
schools and was rejecting the proposition of acting as an alternative
to established orthodoxies. Instead, Chan positioned itself at the very
center of Chinese Buddhism, simultaneously representing its very core
and essence, but also reaching outwardly and embracing other key
elements of elite Buddhism, which of course included the scriptures and
the canonical traditions.

Confucian Parallels

Before concluding this exploration of Chan
attitudes towards canonicity, let me briefly note an interesting
parallel in intellectual developments outside of Buddhism that took
place during the same period. The preliminary observations introduced
here are only meant to suggest an interesting topic for further
scholarly research, rather than propose an interpretation of these
events. The Hongzhou school's appearance on the Tang religious
landscape took place during the years following the An Lushan
rebellion. That was a fascinating historical period that among other
things was marked by momentous changes in Tang intellectual life.49 In reference to the present subject, it is interesting to note that the
subtle but significant shift in the Hongzhou school's attitudes towards
the Buddhist canon paralleled changes in the attitudes towards
Confucian canonical scholarship evidenced among scholars active during
the post-rebellion period.

In the more decentralized scholarly world of the
mid-Tang period, which was no longer dominated by the kinds of imperial
commissions of large scholarly works that were prevalent during the
early Tang, unofficial Confucian scholarship flourished. In their
writings, Confucian scholars moved away from interpreting the canon in
ways consistent with the state's concern with its legitimacy. Instead,
they presented new ideas in which the classics were primarily utilized
to justify their views about a wide range of issues with which they
were concerned, including questions of religious beliefs.50 The development of such independent critical tradition in Confucian
canonical learning led to what David McMullen has called the "deep
interiorization" of the post-rebellion Confucian tradition.51

The guwen古文 ("old-style writing") movement, whose best-known representatives were Han Yu 韓愚 (768-824) , Li Ao李翱 (772-841), and Liu Zongyuan 柳宗元 (773-819), represented an attempt to relate traditional intellectual
concerns to the actualities of life in mid-Tang China. As they were
attempting new ways of reading the Confucian classics without recourse
to established commentarial traditions, but in light of the issues and
problems that were relevant to their own time, in their writings guwen proponents adopted an activist tone and self-conscious reflectiveness that evoked similarity with the attitudes of Chan monks.52 For them appropriate course of action was based on personal acquisition
of proper ideas, rather than on knowledge and imitation of normative
cultural forms.53 Yet, while cultivated man were supposed to the able to think by
themselves, values had to be grounded in "the way of the [ancient]
sages" (shengren zhi dao聖人之道).54 Like in the case of the Hongzhou school, the new attitudes towards
canonicity involved formulation of new responses to received
traditions, which at their core involved personal insights into the
essential principles revealed by the scriptures/classics. That implied
bringing new life into hallowed traditions by recapturing their
substance and making them relevant to contemporary concerns and issues
of vital import.

Obviously more research needs to be done before we
can draw any firm conclusions about possible connections between Chan
and Confucian scholarship during this period. In that respect, it is
also interesting to note that there are examples of personal
connections between Mazu's disciples and noted Confucians.55 Presently, we can simply consider that although the Hongzhou school's
redefinition of canonical authority was shaped by other aspects of the
internal development of Chan, at least to some extent it also reflected
broader changes in the intellectual and social climates that defined
the post-rebellion period.

Notes

1. The conference "paper" evolved
into a chapter for a forthcoming volume on the Hongzhou school I am
currently working on, which is how I am presenting it here. Although I
have not made an effort to change the text's structure and deal with
the cross-references, on the whole it can be read on its own as an
independent study of the subject matter. return

11. Hirai Shunei, "The School of Mount Niu-t'ou and the School of Pao-T'ang Monastery" (translated by Silvio Vita), East and West 37/1-4, p. 14. For more information about the connections between early Chan and Sanlun see Suzuki Tetsuo, Chūgoku zenshūshi ronkō, pp. 93-116. return

12. The term jueguan (obliteration of contemplation or cognition) that appears in the title of Farong's treatise originally comes from Jizang's 吉藏 (549-623) Dasheng xuanlun.
See John R. McRae, "The Ox-head School of Chinese Ch'an Buddhism: From
Early Ch'an to the Golden Age," in Robert M. Gimello and Peter Gregory,
eds., Studies in Ch'an and Hua-yen, p. 209. For discussion of parallels/connections between the contents of Jueguan lun and teachings associated with Bodhidharma see Sekiguchi Shindai, Daruma no kenkyū, pp. 321-31. return

16. For a study and translation of this text see Robert Buswell, The Formation of Ch'an Ideology in China and Korea: The Vajrasamādhi-Sūtra, A Buddhist Apocriphon. return

17. The expression "symbolic exegesis" comes from the work of Bernard Faure; see Faure, The Will to Orthodoxy, p. 41. McRae uses the term "contemplative analysis," which is a translation of guanxhin shi觀心釋; see McRae, The Northern School, pp. 201-02. return

18. T 51.189a, and Yanagida, trans., Shoki no zenshi II,
p. 200. Similar idea can be found in the records of Shenhui. See Hirai
Shunei, "The School of Mount Niu-t'ou and the School of Pao-T'ang
Monastery," pp. 360-61, and Yanagida, "The Li-tai fa-pao chi and the Ch'an Doctrine of Sudden Awakening," pp. 29-30. return

19. T 48.339a; translation from Yampolsky, trans., The Platform S(tra, p. 140. Note that Yamposky uses a different rendering for chanding that the one suggested by me above. return

20. McRae, The Northern School,
p. 198. McRae makes such assertion in reference to the Northern School.
I think the same can be said of the authors/editors of Shenhui's
records and the Platform Scripture. return

22. MY, XZJ 119.408a; and Cheng Chien, Sun-Face Buddha, p. 16. There is a different version of this story in Gu zunsu yulu; see XZJ 118.80d, and Cheng Chien, Sun-Face Buddha, p. 92, n. 58. return

23. ZTJ 4.96-97; CDL 14.262. The
story is illustrated in a painting by Yintuolou, with an inscription by
Chushi Fengqi (1297-1371), painted during the Yuan dynasty and now in
the possession of Nanzenji temple in Kyoto. return

24. Mario Poceski, "Mazu yulu and the Creation of the Chan Records of Sayings," in Steven Heine and Dale S. Wright, eds., The Zen Canon (forthcoming from Oxford University Press in 2003). return

27. For a discussion of the metaphor of a mirror see McRae, The Northern School,
pp. 144-46. As McRae points out, the metaphor was connected to the
Yogācāra doctrine of the "great perfect mirror wisdom," one of the four
wisdoms that emerge when ālaya is transformed at its basis with the realization of enlightenment.
Baizhang seems to have been aware of this connection, as in a number of
passages in BGL he refers to the mirror wisdom. return

29. A representative visual representation of such attitude is the painting of the Sixth Patriarch destroying a sūtra (六祖破經) by Liang Kai (Southern Song), in the collection of the Tokyo National Museum. return

30. The verse of which these two lines are a part first appeared in Zuting shiyuan, XZJ 113.66c. For the origins of the individual lines of this verse see Yanagida, Shoki zenshū shiso no kenkyū, pp. 461-62, 470-77. return

31. I think that the "special
transmission outside of the teachings" motto did not really represent
the attitudes of the mainstream Chan movement at any historical period,
nor does it reflect the manner in which canonical literature was used
by the Chan school. The statement should perhaps best be read as an
example of the strategies that the early Song advocates of sectarian
Chan identity developed during the ideological battles waged in order
to assert the uniqueness and superiority of Chan vis-à-vis the other
competing Buddhist traditions. return

33. This includes all five extant
sermons of Mazu, which do not appear together as a single text. For a
useful presentation of the Chinese texts of the extant versions of each
sermon that lends itself to easy comparison see Yanagida, "Goroku no
rekishi," pp. 484-89, 496-98, 504-07, 512. return

34. Because of the large number of quotations from diverse sources that appear in Dunwu yaomen,
in this and the following table I have not included a number of less
known texts which are only quoted once or twice by Dazhu. Examples of
such texts include Fangkuang jing and Fo shuo jiuzhi jing.
For a listing of texts quoted by Dazhu see Scott Dennis Peterman, "The
Legend of Huihai" (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1986), pp. 369-71. return

35. Because of the lack of
critical editions and studies of Baizhang's text, and the manner in
which it quotes canonical sources (see below), it is highly plausible
that I have not been able to identify all quotations from the sources
listed in the table; the actual number of quotations/allusions that
appear in BGL is probably higher then it is indicated in the table. return

36. For a useful summary of the canonical sources quoted in Shehui's records see the table in Suzuki, Chūgoku zenshūshi ronkō, p. 128. return

41. Fahua youyi法華遊意, T34.640b. The first part of the sentence, "The Dharma-body is unconditioned," also appears in Sengzhao's commentary of the Vimalakīrti Scripture; see Zhu weimojie jing注維摩詰經 T38. 355a, 360a, 412a. I suspect Baizhang is conflating (or confusing) the two commentaries. return

42. Alternative translation could
read "the sagely essence..." I have been unable to find any text where
the exact sentence appears. The closest is a sentence from a
fragmentary commentary of the Vimalakīrti Scripture, which reads: "the essence of the true nature of reality is nameless and cannot be expressed in words." Weimojie jing shu維摩經疏 3, T85.381c. Similar ideas are also expressed in the "Nirvana is Nameless Treatise" in Zhaolun (see T45.157a-58b), which is probably the text Baizhang is referring
to. In addition, similar statement, which reads "the self-essence is
nameless" (ziti wuming自體無名), appears in Baozang lun寶藏論, T45.144b. return

46. As pointed out by Faure,
sectarian activities like those engaged in by Shenhui represented a
lack of richness of tradition and a sense of personal insecurity on
part of him and his followers. Faure, The Will to Orthodoxy, p. 9. return

49. The intellectual changes that
occurred during this period have been studied by a number of scholars,
starting with Pulleyblank's seminal article, and more recently by
McMullen, Bol, Hartman, and others. See Edwin Pulleyblank,
"Neo-Confucianism and Neo-Legalism in T'ang Intellectual Life,
755-805," in Arthur F. Wright, ed., The Confucian Persuasion, pp. 77-111; David McMullen, State and Scholars in T'ang China; and Peter Kees Bol, "This Culture of Ours": Intellectual Transitions in T'ang and Sung China, pp. 108-47. return

50. David McMullen, State and Scholars in T'ang China, pp. 69-70. return